I've often heard that Luke 14:26 is meant to be interpreted as "Love me more than your family" or something along those lines (in fact, the CEV translates it as such). I'm interested in how scholars came to this interpretation. Is it just a case of "Oh, this doesn't line up with everything else Jesus said, therefore we need to reinterpret it in light of other scripture"? Alternatively, would scholars come to the same conclusion if they had only Luke 14:26 in isolation (due to either cultural or textual clues)?

In my travels on the web, I've also seen this passage used as one reason why Jewish people don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah; the author stated that Jesus broke the fifth commandment to honor your father and mother.
–
transistor1Nov 14 '11 at 18:54

If It Doesn't Mean Hate Then It Should Say So. Because It Says Hate, It's Wrong And Jesus Didn't Say It. What Evidence Is There In Other Common Greek Usage Is The Term "Hate" Employed As "Separate?"
–
user5511Jul 18 '14 at 4:17

8 Answers
8

No, I don't think we are dealing with a case of "Oh, this doesn't line up with everything else Jesus said, therefore..."

However, I will say we need the entirety of Luke 14 to make sense of this gnarly truth that Jesus is making.

To start off, don't overlook the fact that Luke 14:26 includes more than family members - it also includes ourselves -

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and
wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own
life, he cannot be my disciple.

The fact that Jesus mentions "...and even his own life.." is a clue to a proper interpretation of this verse.

That said, prior to Luke 14:26, we read of a guy who says,

Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God. (Lk 14:15)

and Jesus responds to this guy with a parable that is about a man who gave a huge party and invited a bunch of people. All the people who were invited declined the invitation with excuses that had to do with earthly type of responsibilities and possessions...

I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it

I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them

I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come

In response to the declined invitations, the host of the party "brought in the poor and crippled and blind and lame" and compelled anyone and everyone else.

Keep in mind that the parable was in response to "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God."

The parable seems to make it clear that Jesus is thinking, "Although, it's true that blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God, not everyone will give up their earthly responsibilities to even come to the kingdom of God."

Jesus reiterates this parable with Luke 14:26 - where hating your family and your own life refer to giving up all of who you are to be Jesus' disciple.

There are so many other passages to back up this concept, but I do believe the parable in Luke 14:16-24 shed enough light on how to interpret Luke 14:26.

According to Thayler's lexicon, (as I understand (in the below scan) .. people in the culture were really much like modern Italians and Greeks, and it was common to both love and hate something at the same time, so the greek word used could be interpreted 'love less than':

Also from Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

(b) of a right feeling of aversion from what is evil; said of
wrongdoing, Rom 7:15; iniquity, Hbr 1:9; "the garment (figurative)
spotted by the flesh," Jud 1:23; "the works of the Nicolaitans," Rev
2:6 (and ver. 15, in some mss.; see the AV);

(c) of relative preference for one thing over another, by way of
expressing either aversion from, or disregard for, the claims of one
person or thing relatively to those of another, Mat 6:24; and Luk
16:13, as to the impossibility of serving two masters; Luk 14:26, as
to the claims of parents relatively to those of Christ; Jhn 12:25, of
disregard for one's life relatively to the claims of Christ; Eph 5:29,
negatively, of one's flesh, i.e. of one's own, and therefore a man's
wife as one with him.

--- Answer with other verses included ----

My understanding is that we should be hating everything that gets between us and being a disciple.

It all seems to be about the world hating God's salvation and God's followers hating things that get in the way of it.

Some associated verses (numbers are strongs numbers, note the same basic word for hate):

The similar command in Matthew 10:37 shows that the ancient world understood this saying of Jesus to be not complete hatred (37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me").

There is no reason to assume an Aramaic source for the Gospels based on this saying when both Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew contain the same word with the same range of meaning. Sone'/sane' appears 148 times in 139 verses throughout the Old Testament. The third time it is used it shows the meaning of "not preferred" (Genesis 29:31).

Now the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. (NASU)

It is very interesting to note the verse prior:

So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served with Laban for another seven years. (Genesis 29:30 NASU)

That shows us that sane in 31 is opposite to "loved more." Hence, "hate" is "love less."

Another example of expressing a preference for one over another is found in Deuteronomy 21:15ff:

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.

This obviously describes a man showing favoritism between two wives. It is not hatred as we know it.

Another example of "hatred" meaning "showing a preference for the other" is found in Malachi.

... yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau..." (Malachi 1:2-3)

Esau was not completely rejected.

To further link Luke's use to the Hebrew, the Greek word he uses, pisei, is a form of the same word used in the Septuagint to translate sane'/sone'. All of the references above use forms of piseo in the Greek.

This concept of preference being expressed by sone'/sane' of the less preferred also appears in the rabbinic writing which are in Mishnaic Hebrew.

"By three names is this mount known: The mountain of God, Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai. . . . Why The mountain of God? (Exodus 18:5). Because it was there that God manifested His Godhead. And Sinai? Because [it was on that mount] that God showed that He hates the angels and loves mankind." (Exodus Rabbah 51.8, Soncino edition)

Does God really hate the angels as we understand hatred? No. He prefers mankind for to us He gave Torah. This is a wordplay as sane and Sinai sound similar.

So with this in mind, the more correct translation of Luke 14:26: "If
any man comes to me, and doesn't put aside his own father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yes, and his own
life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Along with this I would also like to point out that while aversion also has very strong connotations in our language, according the dictionary, its root is related to avers meaning turned away.

As such, it calls to mind an image of leaving loved ones behind to follow Jesus. This is played out on a sacrificial level by ministers and missionaries who leave their loved ones at home to serve the Lord. How consistent with what Jesus is also recorded to have said in Matthew 19:29 & Luke 9:49-52!

This is also played out on a less romantic level, leaving behind those who are not supportive of one's mission. This calls to mind the same picture as the song children often sing, "I have decided to follow Jesus . . . Though none go with me still I will follow . . . the cross before me, the world behind me . . . no turning back, no turning back." That also is consistent with Jesus teaching that his followers would be hated even by family for His names sake Luke 21:26-17!

If this gospel were translated from Aramaic to Greek, it is understandable how this meaning could have been lost in translation due to its other meaning. It is not unbelievable that Luke could have written his gospel in Aramaic. According to Acts 2:7 Jesus followers were Galileans. The language of Galilee was Aramaic.

However, if that does not click, perhaps a look at the etymologies of the Greek word used here or of the English word hate will assist you.

Only thing I disagree with here is invoking Aramaic Primacy when it isn't needed (but then it never is. Mishnaic Hebrew answers the same questions and so many more). Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew use the word sone' with the same range of meaning.
–
Frank LukeSep 11 '13 at 17:32

The only difference is that we have the Aramaic Gospel of Luke to look at and we do not have the Hebrew--true?
–
user2027Sep 11 '13 at 20:17

2

We have a translation of the Greek Gospel of Luke into Aramaic. Examining the Greek of Luke shows a plethora of Hebraisms that do not exist in Aramaic and show that Luke's sources were Hebrew. Not having the original texts does not stop scholars from determining the original language from a translation. For example, even though the intertestamental writing of Tobit was originally only known in Aramaic and Greek, it was long theorized that it was originally written in Hebrew and translated. More recent discoveries have proven that correct.
–
Frank LukeSep 11 '13 at 20:28

In the ancient Near East, "love" and "hate" had strong legal connotations. The son whom a father loved was the son who'd receive his father's inheritance. So here love means to put one above others. The one whom the father "hated" was the one put in secondary status, who did not receive his father's inheritance. Thus "hate" means to separate. So when Jesus tells us we must hate our family and life itself, it really means that we must put those things into secondary status: we must be willing to separate ourselves from these other things in order to love, put in the place of most importance, and follow Jesus.

Kevin, do you have a source for what you say about inheritance practice? The bible specifies inheritance law and it's not related to how one feels about the kids. (Granted, this law is often not applied in Genesis, but the law is clear nonetheless.)
–
Gone QuietNov 11 '13 at 13:25

I agree with Jed that the context is in response to the guy who declared;

Luke 14:15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these
things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the
kingdom of God.

This guy was making what he probably thought was a pious, non-controversial, and generally acceptable toast or even benediction.

Jesus used this declaration to confront the impression held by many that everyone was automatically going to be in the kingdom of heaven. The parable he gives is one that illustrates that entrance to the kingdom is not automatic. In fact those who were invited and not interested will be excluded.

Luke 14:24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were
bidden shall taste of my supper.

Jesus then goes on to say that entrance to the kingdom will not only require responding to an invitation, but also be associated with difficulties such has opposition from family members and even being subject to humiliation and shame associated with the carrying of a cross as part of the criminal capital punishment of the Romans.

Luke 14:26-27 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not
bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

The "hatred" here is indicative a separation from anything that hinders. The parable describes the hindrance of routine daily affairs. Next, the ante is upped as the natural affection for family and even the natural desire to live are targeted as potential hindrances. Finally the shame of the cross is illustrative of the desire to avoid public scorn for following Jesus which can also be seen as a hindrance.

Jesus brings the topic to its summation, that of cost counting. When the man made his declaration assuming everyone would eat bread in the kingdom, he probably did not think that Jesus would use this opportunity to illustrate that this was not as easy an event as he and probably most supposed.

Luke 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not
down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to
finish it?

In order for us to count the cost of seeking the kingdom, we need to know what it could entail and consider that. What Jesus said was not that we should hate our parents, but that like new recruits in basic training, we need to understand that we are facing a serious enterprise that can cost us dearly including our own lives.

Easy. The word translated as "hate" simply means "to love less than" or "to have lesser priority than". It does NOT mean what our modern word "hate" means. In fact Jesus in Matthew 15:4 reiterated the command to "love" father and mother.

De 19:6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his
heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him;
whereas he [was] not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in
time past.

There is an ambiguity which permits us to say that the accident was an act of hate. Though it is not intuitive to those of us in a western culture, notice how Rashi clearly spells out that the perpetrator of the accident was a murderer, and that the blood-redeemer initially considers him an enemy. These are words associated with hate. The purpose of fleeing to the refuge city was to give the blood-redeemer time to cool off and recognize that he had not previously hated.

Verse 4: And this is the matter of the murderer who may flee there to
survive: whoever smites his peer without intent, and he had not been
his enemy yesterday [or] the day before;

Verse 5: And whoever comes with his peer into the woods to chop trees,
and as his hand swung the axe downward to cut the wood the iron flew
off the wooden handle and encounters his peer and he dies; he is to
flee to one of these cities to survive.

Verse 6: Lest the blood-redeemer pursue the murderer when his heart
grows heated, and he catches up with him over the length of the road
and he smite him dead when he has no death sentence because he had not
been his enemy yesterday [or] the day before.

--Rashi

Just as the one wielding the axe is called a murderer, which is extreme to our sensibilities, the action itself is implied to be an act of hate.

This is consistent with what we know love to be, putting the other ahead of yourself. The accident is hate because you did not consider the safety of the other before your own actions.

So 'hating' your parents is simply putting God before them. When Jesus was asked by his parents at age 12, "Why have you treated us so?" It is asking, why he has hated them. His response was that he must be about his father's business.

The following passages are difficult to understand unless hate is understood as "not considering the other first" or considering them second. Esau was the first born but Jacob received the inheritance. Esau was hated by God.

Mal 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage
waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
Ro 9:13 As it is written,
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Similarly, Jacob loved Leah, but not as much as Rachel:

30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more
than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 ¶ And when
the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was
barren.

Simply being second is a position of being hated.

Immediately preceding the text in question, those in the parable who did not come when invited had put the lord second:

17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were
bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. 18 And they all with one
consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a
piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me
excused. 19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I
go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. 20 And another said, I
have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

The immediate context is the basis for the teaching that God must come first, not second. All of the people in the parable have hated the lord.

"Here the act of accidentally killing someone is referred to as hate" - that is a non-intuitive reading of Deuteronomy 19:4-6 IMO, even in the KJV
–
Jack DouglasOct 17 '11 at 4:29

The nature of riddle is such that it is based on ambuguity of words, grammar, ideas, etc. The phrase "had not previously hated" is where the ambiguity is introduced, which permits the alternate reading. The interpretation is validated by the definition of love, putting the other before yourself. At what point is a really careless accident not love? The point at which your care for the other was insufficient to protect them. The end result is that hate is simply not putting the other person first. Not loving them.
–
Bob JonesOct 18 '11 at 3:58